UNOCCUPIED PREMISES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20827, 20 March 1931, Page 12

UNOCCUPIED PREMISES.

EATING ACT APPEAL CASE.

EXEMPTION OF HALF AMOUNT.

AUCKLAND CITY BUILDINGS.

COURT RESERVES DECISION. [BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Thursday.' The Court of Appeal, consisting of the Chief .Justice, - Sir Michael Myers, and Justices Reed, Adams, Ostler and Smith, to-day began hearing argument upon an ■ originating summons filed'by Samuel Yaile and Sons, Limited, Auckland, naming the Auckland City Council as defendant, asking for an interpretation of section 69 of the Rating Act, 1925. The case was brought before the Supreme Court at Auckland on February 4 when, owing to 'he importance of the points involved, it was removed by consent of the parties to the Court of Appeal.

Section 69' of the Rating Act, 1925, provides that in every case where any dwellinghouse or other building remains actually vacant and unoccupied for a period of not less than six months in any rating year, whether continuously or not, and the person rated gives notice to the local authority 'within 14 days of the dates on which the house became unoccupied, and again occupied, then only half the rates payable for the year shall be payable in respect of the building concerned. Plaintiff is owner or acts as agent for other owners of the following classes of property in Auckland: —(a) Any shop, office or business > remises which have been separately assessed and rated by the defendant, and are part only of one building, where the tenancy upon which the same is usually let is from week to week or month to month; (b) buildings comprising shop or other business premises and dwelling, the whole of which is rated as one assessment, where the tenancy upon which the same is usually let is from week to week or month to month; (c) shop, office or other business premises comprising an entire building and having no residential accommodation, where the tenancy upon which the same is usually let is from week to week or month to month.

Refusal to Pay Pull Rate. ' Premises as above became vacant and remained unoccupied for a period of not less than six months in the rating year, 1929-1930. Within 14 days from the expiration of such period the plaintiff gave notice in writing of the respective dates upon which the premises became vacant and unoccupied and upon which they again became occupied. Plaintiff paid to the defendant one half only of the year's rates for that year, as assessed and charged by the defendant. Defendant claimed from plaintiff tke remaining half of tho rates, which plaintiff refused to pay. Each of the properties had been separately assessed and rated by the defendant. The originating Fummons asks whether under those circumstances plaintiff was liable to pay tho full year's or half-year's rates upon the said properties. , Mr. Northcroft and Mr. Wilson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Stanton and Mr. O'Shea for defendant. Mr. Northcroft stated in opening that the purpose of the inquiry was the interpretation of Act, which exempted "houses or other buildings" unoccupied for six months of more from payment of one-half of the annual rates. The question for the decision of the Court was whether tho words "other buildings" -■included commercial buildings, such as shops, offices or business premises. Submissions by Counsel. Counsel "Submitted that the words "other buildings" should repeive their, wide and common interpretation, as being erections capable of occupation, but not necessarily for residence. The intention of the Legislature was to relieve from the burden of half of the annual rates any buildings capable of commercial use and untenanted for six months "or over. Such broad intention was discernible, and where the words used permitted such meaning to be taken the cardinal rule of interpretation was that a wide meaning should bo given to the words "other buildings." Mr. O'Shea, in reply, submitted that the exemption extended to , "houses or other buildings" applied .only to buildings used for more or less permanent habitation. He contended that the real purpose of the legislation was to, relieve the burden from the shoulders of those who built houses, and could not let them. Whether a combined shop and house came within the terms of the exemption depended upon whether tho building was primarily a shop or place of residence. .» Mr. Stanton, in support, submitted that tho class of building intended to bo exempted was that usually let for a short term. The Court reserved its decision.